The question to ask about The Italians

[Zap]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zap

From all the comments, it seems the best thing for Germany/Italy to do would have been wait one year before making the move. Thereby, they would have built a more/better attack force?

warspite1

What do you mean? Are you asking if Germany should have waited a year to declare war or are you referring to Italy joining Germany in June 1941?

If the former then no, because Germany's lead (through rearmament and conscription) would only start to reduce as the greater purchasing power of Britain and France took effect. Germany had a window of opportunity that would start to close. If the latter then I don't really see what difference it would have made. The Italian economy and her military were in no state to fight any war, let alone a protracted one. She was in no state to build her military to the required level as she could not afford it - and for the reasons stated above - Germany couldn't help her.

warspite1

Hi zap which of the two was it you meant?

I was referring to Both the Germans and Italians. If the Germans could have held back an not given signals it was ready for war. In other words disguise their intentions. England, Russia, France, would have no fear thus no ramp-up for war policy from those three.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zap

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

What do you mean? Are you asking if Germany should have waited a year to declare war or are you referring to Italy joining Germany in June 1941?

If the former then no, because Germany's lead (through rearmament and conscription) would only start to reduce as the greater purchasing power of Britain and France took effect. Germany had a window of opportunity that would start to close. If the latter then I don't really see what difference it would have made. The Italian economy and her military were in no state to fight any war, let alone a protracted one. She was in no state to build her military to the required level as she could not afford it - and for the reasons stated above - Germany couldn't help her.

warspite1

Hi zap which of the two was it you meant?

I was referring to Both the Germans and Italians. If the Germans could have held back an not given signals it was ready for war. In other words disguise their intentions. England, Russia, France, would have no fear thus no ramp-up for war policy from those three.

warspite1

I understand your point about the British and French not ramping up as much. After all neither wanted war and, as leaders of democracies, they had to balance the books and unlimited spending on the military wasn't ever an option. BUT....

....and there is a big but (and for the purposes of the debate we'll ignore that waiting was simply not possible for Hitler). The Germans couldn't simply sit around for a year spending more and more on their armed forces. The economy could not be ignored even by Hitler. He had to pay for the resources that the military spending was using up, and he could not afford to turn off production of consumer goods without risking severe internal unrest. All this continued activity isn't going to go unnoticed in London, Paris, Moscow and Warsaw and they are not going to stop their own re-armament plans - remember, Munich has happened, Hitler goals are clear - even if Allied re-armament is not as ramped up as it would have been.

And as said, Germany can't do all this and spend money, time and most importantly resource on Italy.

I think Hitler waiting (even if it was in that man's DNA) would not have served Germany much (if any) better than going to war in 1939. At the very least, the RN would be stronger, the French air force would be stronger and both the French and British armies would also be in a better position (although quite how much is difficult to say).

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zap

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

Hi zap which of the two was it you meant?

I was referring to Both the Germans and Italians. If the Germans could have held back an not given signals it was ready for war. In other words disguise their intentions. England, Russia, France, would have no fear thus no ramp-up for war policy from those three.

warspite1

I understand your point about the British and French not ramping up as much. After all neither wanted war and, as leaders of democracies, they had to balance the books and unlimited spending on the military wasn't ever an option. BUT....

....and there is a big but (and for the purposes of the debate we'll ignore that waiting was simply not possible for Hitler). The Germans couldn't simply sit around for a year spending more and more on their armed forces. The economy could not be ignored even by Hitler. He had to pay for the resources that the military spending was using up, and he could not afford to turn off production of consumer goods without risking severe internal unrest. All this continued activity isn't going to go unnoticed in London, Paris, Moscow and Warsaw and they are not going to stop their own re-armament plans - remember, Munich has happened, Hitler goals are clear - even if Allied re-armament is not as ramped up as it would have been.

And as said, Germany can't do all this and spend money, time and most importantly resource on Italy.

I think Hitler waiting (even if it was in that man's DNA) would not have served Germany much (if any) better than going to war in 1939. At the very least, the RN would be stronger, the French air force would be stronger and both the French and British armies would also be in a better position (although quite how much is difficult to say).

Not to mention that Germany was using the financial resources of Austria and the Czech part of Czechoslovakia to finance Germany.

Yes, the economic costs of the economy with the good healthcare, the childcare, the nice working environment, the programs for the children, and all that stuff was being paid for bu the 80% tax rate. There was not too much left for the military's continued expansion plus the elimination of the obsolete equipment.

[Hexagon]

I think no because the problem with Italy was a strategic one, the chance to win WWII for axis finished in 1942 that is when the 30s equipment of italians become totally obsolete, over 1942 win or lose war was a question of numbers and leave the area of a military victory based in short but decisive campaigns like in 1940 and east front war until failure to hold the soviet oil fields (apart the totally disaster that was 1943 for axis).

If Italy didnt attack France, try force a war with UK (imagine an Italian ship in Dakar...), focus in take Malta and defeat UK in Africa continent... that sure open a more solid "liberation" operation in middle east... with Turkey moving to axis... think how usefull could be Italy removing the british problem for Germany in Europe... and later when Japan enter in war... India independence by indians.

In general a few PzIV or PzIII only can help made tactical battles better for italians but they never can change the horrible direction of war and how Italy wasted resources... like send trucks to balcans and not to north AFrica leaving in desert a pure foot army

One thing is have good equipment, other very different know where and when use it.

[nicwb]

warspite1

I understand your point about the British and French not ramping up as much. After all neither wanted war and, as leaders of democracies, they had to balance the books and unlimited spending on the military wasn't ever an option. BUT....

....and there is a big but (and for the purposes of the debate we'll ignore that waiting was simply not possible for Hitler). The Germans couldn't simply sit around for a year spending more and more on their armed forces. The economy could not be ignored even by Hitler. He had to pay for the resources that the military spending was using up, and he could not afford to turn off production of consumer goods without risking severe internal unrest. All this continued activity isn't going to go unnoticed in London, Paris, Moscow and Warsaw and they are not going to stop their own re-armament plans - remember, Munich has happened, Hitler goals are clear - even if Allied re-armament is not as ramped up as it would have been.

And as said, Germany can't do all this and spend money, time and most importantly resource on Italy.

I think Hitler waiting (even if it was in that man's DNA) would not have served Germany much (if any) better than going to war in 1939. At the very least, the RN would be stronger, the French air force would be stronger and both the French and British armies would also be in a better position (although quite how much is difficult to say).

There are actually a lot of arguments in favour of the idea that Hitler committed far too early - or rather underestimated the strength of the British and French response. In a lot of respects Hitler was an opportunist he had bluffed and won on rearmament, re-militarisation of the Rhineland and the Czech's. Essentially he read correctly that the west didn't want wars and simply gambled that the response over Poland would be similar.

As for too early -(i) at the start of the war apart from panzer formations most of the German army was still horse drawn. That situation persisted even in the invasion of the USSR. Both the British and French had more mechanized troops (ii) even in the panzer formations, the West outnumbered the Germans in tanks and most of the tanks were PzII's or Pz38's. The Pz III and Pz IV existed but not in overwhelming numbers (ii) the Kriegsmarine were greatly outnumbered by the RN and French navy. The Kriegsmarine was forced to conduct most of its war via Uboat. (iii) industrially Germany didn't hit peak wartime production until about 1943.

[RangerJoe]

Germany did not concentrate on simple things like an Armee truck. There were over 100 different types of trucks. Develop, test, and build three or four different trucks and let every manufacturer make them as needed. You want the small, mobile ones like the US Army quarter ton, the three quarter ton pick-up or the one ton weapons carrier, the two and a half ton truck, and then any larger capacity trucks. That would have simplified manufacturing and parts.

Not that the Germans should not have continued to use captured trucks and equipment, but those should have been kept in certain areas and not spread around.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: nicwb

There are actually a lot of arguments in favour of the idea that Hitler committed far too early

warspite1

The production ramping up in 1943 includes the resources plundered from conquered countries, the moving of the economy to a total war footing and of course masses of slave labour.

To suggest that Hitler had time to play with is against everything I've ever read and so I'd be very interested to see a source or two for that. Can you let me know of any books/authors you have read that have expressed that point of view please?

Many thanks.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: Zap

Having the similar quality equipment as the Germans and tanks equal to Panzer IVs would the War outcome been significantly different?

My, answer is Yes! the war may have actually been won by the axis side. In the least, it would have carried on for some years more.

Well if Germany had treated it's Allies, aswell as the people who fell under German controlled territory esp in places like the Ukraine as an equal, and then kitted them out with the same equipment as they used, then yes, I think it's more than likely Germany would have won the War.

[nicwb]

uote:

ORIGINAL: nicwb

There are actually a lot of arguments in favour of the idea that Hitler committed far too early

warspite1

The production ramping up in 1943 includes the resources plundered from conquered countries, the moving of the economy to a total war footing and of course masses of slave labour.

To suggest that Hitler had time to play with is against everything I've ever read and so I'd be very interested to see a source or two for that. Can you let me know of any books/authors you have read that have expressed that point of view please?

Many thanks.

Ok hopefully we are not at cross-purposes. My suggestion is that the German military and economy weren't really yet ready for a protracted war. Whether as a whole Hitler had a limited window of opportunity is far more complex but one factor is the state of German military and economic resources is a factor.

In respect to the German economy and Hitler's opportunism I would suggest Prof Richard Evans "The Third Reich in Power" and the "Third Reich at War" -they are not fully on topic but do cover the economic situation well. In the run up to the war Germany was essentially in real difficulties financing rearmament. Once they solved that the problem became man power shortages (and this is before the war). Mobilisation only made the shortages more acute.

As for opportunism, the re-occupation of the Rhineland was mostly bluff. Hitler gambled that Britain and France would not react. But to give the appearance of strength the armed forces numbers were buffered up by police units.

In respect of military forces available at the time of the invasion of France I would suggest a recent you tube video by the Tank Museum. Its actually on the battle of Arras but a large proportion of the talk is on the competing state of the German military vs the British and French at the time.
https://youtu.be/EPKp-GKgbl0

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: nicwb

uote:

ORIGINAL: nicwb

There are actually a lot of arguments in favour of the idea that Hitler committed far too early

warspite1

The production ramping up in 1943 includes the resources plundered from conquered countries, the moving of the economy to a total war footing and of course masses of slave labour.

To suggest that Hitler had time to play with is against everything I've ever read and so I'd be very interested to see a source or two for that. Can you let me know of any books/authors you have read that have expressed that point of view please?

Many thanks.

In respect to the German economy and Hitler's opportunism I would suggest Prof Richard Evans "The Third Reich in Power" and the "Third Reich at War" -they are not fully on topic but do cover the economic situation well. In the run up to the war Germany was essentially in real difficulties financing rearmament. Once they solved that the problem became man power shortages (and this is before the war). Mobilisation only made the shortages more acute.

warspite1

Thanks for the recommendations.

Re the point in bold this was, in part, what I was referring to. I don't think they ever solved the problem (but they certainly made the best of a bad job) but the wider issues were never going away - hence the small window of opportunity (and why I think it is unrealistic to believe Hitler could have waited).

The more conscription as Hitler fed the machine, the more industry and agriculture suffered, the more working conditions worsened, and at the end of the day, the measures put in place weren't going to solve Germany's problems. Worse still, as mentioned previously, Hitler's would be opponents were building up themselves and reducing the gap Hitler had built up.

No Polish invasion, likely no NS Pact - at least in the timescale that actually happened. And that means the Soviets are keeping an even more wary eye on what Germany are producing.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: Zap

Having the similar quality equipment as the Germans and tanks equal to Panzer IVs

They did. I compared stats in SPWAW. Remarkably similar.

[UP844]

ORIGINAL: Hexagon
In general a few PzIV or PzIII only can help made tactical battles better for italians but they never can change the horrible direction of war and how Italy wasted resources... like send trucks to balcans and not to north AFrica leaving in desert a pure foot army

One thing is have good equipment, other very different know where and when use it.

Many of the (few) trucks Italy had were sent to Russia, along with a sizable fraction of the most modern artillery: both of them (especially the truck, to carry supplies) would have been much more useful in North Africa.

The large Italian forces in the Balkans mostly consisted of non-motorized infantry divisions, many of which had a third infantry regiment attached for garrison duties. They had very few motor vehicles, including some armored cars and tankettes for convoy escort duty.

The Italian forces in Africa never were a "pure foot army": even in 1940, they included a brigade of medium tanks (M11/39s and then M13/40s, which fought at Beda Fomm) and several battalions of tankettes. None of them had a chance against Matildas, but not even the German tanks at Arras had one.

Later, only 4-5 foot infantry division remained in North Africa, and they were mostly used for static defence and in some set-pieces assaults (Tobruk).
All the Italian mobile units served in North Africa:
- three armoured divisions (Ariete, Littorio and Centauro)
- two motorised infantry divisions (Trento and Trieste)
- many smaller units (SP artillery, cavalry, Bersaglieri motorised infantry).

They performed reasonably well - when led by Rommel [;)] - but their equipment was hopelessly obsolete by 1942: M13s could fight British early cruisers but against Grants and Shermans had no chance at all.

[RangerJoe]

The Grants in the summer of 1942 were better than most of the German tanks and the Sherman was superior to all but the Mark IV with the long 75mm until the Tiger showed up in Tunisia.

[spence]

Sixty five different calibers of artillery in the same division - dehydrated rations supplied to the fighting troops in the desert. A few of the many foibles of the Italian Army in WW2.

[UP844]

ORIGINAL: spence

Sixty five different calibers of artillery in the same division

Italian division had not so many guns...

An armored division had 48 guns (16x20 mm AA, 8x47/32 AT and 24x75/27 field guns)
An infantry division had 60 guns (8x20 mm AA, 8x47/32 AT, 8x65/17 Infantry guns, 12x75/13, 12x75/27 and 12x100/17 field guns)

Even though not 65 calibers (where did you get that number? [X(]), they are too many indeed [;)]. There were plans to update the artillery, but only a few modern pieces were produced (another aspect of the general Italian unpreparedness for war)

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: UP844

ORIGINAL: spence

Sixty five different calibers of artillery in the same division

Italian division had not so many guns...

An armored division had 48 guns (16x20 mm AA, 8x47/32 AT and 24x75/27 field guns)
An infantry division had 60 guns (8x20 mm AA, 8x47/32 AT, 8x65/17 Infantry guns, 12x75/13, 12x75/27 and 12x100/17 field guns)

Even though not 65 calibers (where did you get that number? [X(]), they are too many indeed [;)]. There were plans to update the artillery, but only a few modern pieces were produced (another aspect of the general Italian unpreparedness for war)

The guns may have been different models but they were the same caliber. Did they fire the same round or different ones? In a US division, you might have had 75mm, 105mm, and 155mm sized cannons of different types. Then .50 caliber machine guns, 40mm, 76mm and/or 90mm Anti-Aircraft weapons. Then 37mm, 57mm, 76mm, and/or 90mm anti-tank guns.

I think that the Italians did have a 65mm artillery piece.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: nicwb

uote:

ORIGINAL: nicwb

There are actually a lot of arguments in favour of the idea that Hitler committed far too early

warspite1

The production ramping up in 1943 includes the resources plundered from conquered countries, the moving of the economy to a total war footing and of course masses of slave labour.

To suggest that Hitler had time to play with is against everything I've ever read and so I'd be very interested to see a source or two for that. Can you let me know of any books/authors you have read that have expressed that point of view please?

Many thanks.

In respect to the German economy and Hitler's opportunism I would suggest Prof Richard Evans "The Third Reich in Power" and the "Third Reich at War" -they are not fully on topic but do cover the economic situation well. In the run up to the war Germany was essentially in real difficulties financing rearmament. Once they solved that the problem became man power shortages (and this is before the war). Mobilisation only made the shortages more acute.

warspite1

Thanks for the recommendations.

Re the point in bold this was, in part, what I was referring to. I don't think they ever solved the problem (but they certainly made the best of a bad job) but the wider issues were never going away - hence the small window of opportunity (and why I think it is unrealistic to believe Hitler could have waited).

The more conscription as Hitler fed the machine, the more industry and agriculture suffered, the more working conditions worsened, and at the end of the day, the measures put in place weren't going to solve Germany's problems. Worse still, as mentioned previously, Hitler's would be opponents were building up themselves and reducing the gap Hitler had built up.

No Polish invasion, likely no NS Pact - at least in the timescale that actually happened. And that means the Soviets are keeping an even more wary eye on what Germany are producing.

Pre-war, Germany never solved its financial shortfall. This is why the Anschluss (sp) was critical. With it the finncial problems were temporarily eased with the access to the Austrian gold reserves. After the war started the solution was in the forced payments the conquered countries had to make to Berlin.

The forced financial payments from the conquered countries was not an overall war production solution for they considerably weakened the overall economic output available for the German war effort.

Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: UP844



Many of the (few) trucks Italy had were sent to Russia, along with a sizable fraction of the most modern artillery: both of them (especially the truck, to carry supplies) would have been much more useful in North Africa.

The trucks in North Africa would be no substitute for a lack of a railway and decent sized ports in eastern Libya. That is one heck of a long run from Tripoli to the front lines on a single road. Their consumption of fuel would have been similar to the WWI issue faced by the BEF of sending fodder across the Channel to feed the horses. Italy did not have the fuel to be profligate.

Logistics, logistics, logistics. Always underrated.

Alfred

[Zap]

So far the consensus says that extra time would not have helped Italy. It had too many problems based on the Italians major army disorganization and Germany needing better economics to build, so they could not supply the Italians..

So it leaves only this?
Instead of sending Italy alone into Africa Both simultaneously take over African Oil/ Middle East oil. Best done from the wars start. That means Germany would have too hold off on Russia. I think they had more to gain by going to Africa. Capture all the resources available. Minimal loss. Secure holds on Libya and they would have fuel to support their Military.
The major part of the War would have been fought in Africa not Europe.

[Shellshock]

ORIGINAL: Zap

So far the consensus says that extra time would not have helped Italy. It had too many problems based on the Italians major army disorganization and Germany needing better economics to build, so they could not supply the Italians..

So it leaves only this?
Instead of sending Italy alone into Africa Both simultaneously take over African Oil/ Middle East oil. Best done from the wars start. That means Germany would have too hold off on Russia. I think they had more to gain by going to Africa. Capture all the resources available. Minimal loss. Secure holds on Libya and they would have fuel to support their Military.
The major part of the War would have been fought in Africa not Europe.

It's one thing to capture a bunch of oil well heads on another continent, Then likely have to spend months repairing them after the former owners have trashed them prior to capture and the infrastructure that supports them. Refineries, port terminals, pipelines etc. Then you face the logistical problem of getting that oil across the sub infested Mediterranean in Italy's tiny tanker fleet. There are no railroads, tanker cars or pipelines across the Mediterranean to get that oil where it most needs to go, which is to Europe.